Integrity exams lecture

This is what integrity tests are designed for. Integrity tests are tests designed to assess the integrity and honesty of employees and job candidates, as well as their tendency to perform anti-productive actions in the organization. These are self-reporting paper and pencil tests (it doesn't matter if they have been transferred to a computerized format. The basis is identical and distinct from polygraph, interviews, and background checks) intended for use among a normal population that is not criminal or psychopathological.
But it turns out that the task is not so simple. For example, Ogilvy & Mather in England tried to find good sales employees, since they are a consulting company dealing with marketing, promotion, sales, and so on. Of course, like any organization, they preferred honest employees over fraudsters. Therefore, they gave employees an integrity questionnaire, as is customary. For example, employees had to choose what characterized them more: "I obey the laws" or "I like innovations." Both statements describe similarly desirable traits in the eyes of job candidates, especially when it comes to an organization that deals with internet marketing. The first statement describes a person whose prominent trait is integrity, while the second statement describes a person whose prominent trait is innovation. But, the findings show that people who chose the first statement tended to be fired for violating company procedures at significantly higher rates than those who chose the second statement.
Meaning - we have a problem. Before we rush to provide a solution, because of course we thought of a solution, let's dedicate a few minutes to understand where the problem stems from. And to understand this, we'll start with a bit of economics.
The process of recruiting, selecting, and training an employee, even a junior employee and certainly more senior employees, easily reaches tens of thousands of shekels. If we add to that the direct damage caused by the problematic behavior (such as compensation to a customer or replacement of stolen goods) - you don't need to be an expert economist to understand that it would have been better to discover in advance that the employee is a cheater.
Economics also helps us understand when there is a greater chance that people will cheat. For example - intuitively, most of us assume that if a person is solely responsible for taking orders, documenting them, collecting money, keeping records, and managing the business's bank account - there is a greater chance they will deviate from honesty compared to a group of employees who have a division of roles in this context. Why? Because there is one person, with a great temptation of lots of money passing through their hands, and if some of it disappears - no one will know. That is - the chance of being caught and punished is low.
Meaning, if we look at things in a purely economic approach - when there is a great temptation and a low chance of being caught and punished - the chances of organizational delinquency increase (and in certain cases also criminal, like stealing money). This is the rational economic approach, which argues that people are rational beings, aware of all the infinite behavioral possibilities they have, and capable of infinite computational ability to weigh probabilities, etc. Through a rational-computational process, we calculate the expected profit, calculate the chance of being caught and what the punishment will be, and decide whether it is wise to cheat or better to stay on the straight path.
Sound familiar? It turns out that it doesn't really work that way... Accurate weighing and calculations on infinite possibilities is not realistic. And indeed, in research, it turns out that things don't work that way. Dan Ariely, in his book "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty," describes a series of "matrix calculation" studies. Subjects received a matrix (board, table) of decimal numbers, and they had to find pairs of numbers that sum to 10. For example, 3.71 + 6.29. After time was up, the subjects shredded their form and reported verbally how many pairs they found out of the 20 that exist. They received a dollar for each pair. In practice - the form was not shredded, and thus a "cheating" score could be given to each examinee. The rational model predicts that all subjects will say "20 matrices." Why not? The chance of being caught is negligible (the page is shredded); even if they discover I lied - the punishment is not terrible (I'll only get what I deserve and no more); and there is a clear profit - 20 dollars instead of the 6 that I actually deserve...
But, it turns out that most subjects don't cheat, but only "improve results." Few said they solved 20 matrices. Many more said they solved 10 (when the average in the group where they didn't "shred" was 8), that is - they slightly improved their results. And even more puzzling - when they offered 10 dollars for each pair (instead of one dollar), fewer people improved their results... And something even stranger - when the experimenter was blind, and it was clear that there was no chance she peeked at my matrix before I shredded it - even fewer people cheated...
What's the explanation for this?
Kohlberg, a psychologist who dealt with the moral development of people, claims that reward and punishment are tools related to a low level of morality. That is - the possible profit or the chance of being punished will work on people with a low moral level, but most adults in our society are at a higher moral level, and at this level, there is greater importance to other types of responses towards moral / reliable / honest behavior. These responses are related to our self-image and the personal motivation to maintain a self-image and public image of an honest, decent, reliable person, and so on. Most of us drive above the speed limit, but we don't define ourselves as lawbreakers, but on the contrary as law-abiding and respecting it. Kohlberg talks about the "good child" motivation - the motivation that others and I myself will continue to see myself as a good child, who follows the rules of society and is worthy of integrating into it. When a person considers doing something that will harm this self-image - they refrain from doing it. That is, we have another variable to factor into the system, and that is our internal punishment - what is the chance that I will catch myself as a cheater if I behave in a certain way and what is the severity of the punishment I will give myself for it?
Acts of fraud will flourish in places where an employee feels they can cheat, but at the same time maintain a self-image of an honest and decent person and the belief that others see them that way too. There are many things that help us continue to maintain a decent self-image when we improve results and cut corners. For example, if the act is far from "real money" or from the real person who is harmed by the act. For example - Facebook during work hours. It doesn't cost anyone money, it's like a coffee break. But taking 50 shekels from the office fund? That's clearly not acceptable. Shocking!!!
There are many factors that exist within the organization or in the character of people that encourage dishonest behavior, even when we are not aware of it. For example, a situation where there is a conflict of interest between the customer and the service provider, as happens with technicians (laundry, air conditioner, garage), consultants of various types, doctors, and therapists. There are theorists, such as T.E. Becker, who argue that especially in the case of a conflict of interest, there is no reason to cheat if looking at profit and damage in the long term. If the technician charges 500 NIS just for a "visit," then surely we won't return to them again. Therefore, the rational service provider will understand that it's worthwhile to be fair: in order to profit in the long run, they need to look after the customer's interests.
Organizational and cultural norms influence: when we see others who are "like us" cheating - we align with that norm. We can maintain the image of the "good child" and also earn 20 dollars instead of 8. The internal norm also influences: when we ourselves lie "a little," then it will be easier for us to lie "a lot" as well. This is not a conscious influence - even wearing counterfeit brands creates this effect.
When others benefit from our cheating, and we are not cheating from a purely egoistic motive - we cheat more. The image of the good child is preserved because we helped others. That is - altruistic and generous people tend to cheat more easily for others, potentially. Creative people also cheat more easily because their thinking allows them to weave good and "stable" tales to maintain the image of the good child in their own eyes and in the eyes of others.
In situations of fatigue, physical or mental, we cheat more, and also when we had the strength to refuse again and again and again opportunities for fraud - eventually we will run out of energy to resist the temptation, and we will succumb. Of course, how far or close the "eventually" varies between people. For example - how long can I resist eating the cake that I'm not allowed to eat because I'm on an eternal diet?
The really beautiful part in the psychology of cheating is that people deceive themselves. For example, if in the matrix task "the answers appear at the bottom of the page" - people (miraculously) succeeded in more matrices than without the answers. Even when asked to guess how many they would succeed in the next matrix task, in which there would be no answers - they guessed they would succeed more. They believed they really solved all the matrices by themselves, that they didn't peek at the answers at all.
So how do we reduce cheating?
It's clear that increasing enforcement (raising the chances of being caught) and increasing punishment are not sufficient. The way to change is to increase the likelihood of damaging the self-image of the "good child."
- Translate any dishonest act into money / impact on a real person
- Ensure that the interests of the customer and the employee are aligned
- Help each employee to live an authentic life (not fake)
- Fire generous and creative people (just kidding... be more careful with the temptations they face)
- Ensure a balanced workload and overall life balance for employees
- Help people see when they relied on others, on resources, on previous work done in the organization
- Supervision by a colleague with whom we have no acquaintance or work/personal relationships beyond the specific task.
- Declaration of ethical behavior before performing a task in which there is a temptation to cheat. In the calculation matrices, this reduced cheating to zero. The declaration needs to be right before performing a task where there is a temptation to cheat. See how we implemented this in LogiPass (link to the report on compliance with exam guidelines)
- Invest significant organizational resources and effort in creating an atmosphere that raises the bar of what is a "good child." That is - building an organizational culture in which it is very difficult to "cut corners" (or "shortcuts" and the like) and still maintain a self-image/image of the good child. If in the Air Force it is very clear that even a squadron commander enters debriefing after a flight, that he too can make mistakes and that maintaining a proper self-image is admitting a mistake and improving, not not making a mistake or denying it - then the chances of lack of integrity in this context are very small in the Air Force.
- Choose for key positions people with a high personal level of integrity. There are people who tend to be more easily tempted to problematic behaviors - those who declared they solved 9 matrices versus those who declared they solved 12 matrices. In the workplace, this could be a difference of thousands of dollars and more... We'll check in the preliminary job screening tests who has more coping powers (ego strengths, can withstand more temptations), who has more stringent internal norms, who holds the position that he is always right, and so on.
So back to selection - how do we choose in advance key people with a high level of integrity?
In the matrix test, about 80% cheated "a little," adding to themselves an average of 2 correct answers out of 20, and this cost the research tens of thousands of dollars. The big cheaters (who reported 20 correct answers) cost only 400 dollars in total. By analogy, in the real world, there are huge frauds, but it turns out that the real big damage is caused to organizations because of masses of small frauds, which accumulate. For example, Ariely mentions in the story that the New York Art Museum discovered that there are thefts from the art store worth millions of dollars every year. They fired one person who was caught stealing, and the rate of theft hardly changed. Only after cameras were installed did it become clear that dozens of volunteers in the complex each stole a little bit... If so, perhaps it's right to invest in finding the masses of small cheaters? But then we probably won't have any employees at all!!!
It's important to recognize that there is no dichotomous perception of honest / not honest, but a continuum perception - there are people who are more decent and less decent; there are people whose justifications are very diverse and creative, and there are those who are less so; there are people who will easily succumb to temptations and others who are more resistant, and so on... and each organization needs to find the place where it "cuts" on the integrity ruler, according to the organization's occupation and the specific role.
Sackett (1989) distinguished between two types of integrity tests: overt tests and personality-based tests. These tests showed good levels of predictive validity for a variety of CWB behaviors. It seems that each type of test (covert personality questionnaire / overt integrity questionnaire) strengthens the prediction of CWB, and therefore neither type can completely replace the other in predicting CWB. Since the cost of these tests is negligible compared to the financial cost of an unsuitable (not "honest") employee, it is recommended to use both types of tests to improve prediction.
Statements indicating negative behavior of others tend to yield higher levels of agreement than statements about oneself. For example: "Most people who receive low salaries report overtime they didn't actually perform" will yield a higher level of agreement than the corresponding statement "If I were receiving a low salary for my work, I would report overtime I didn't actually perform." Golf players testified that the "average golf player" would cheat in 40% of cases, but they themselves only "16%"...
People who agree with statements that enhance self-aggrandizement are people with greater vulnerability to fraud. For example: "I never err in my first impression of people." These people tend to see themselves as smarter and more correct than they really are. This is actually self-deception built out of an attempt to deceive the world and create some image.
Let's return to Ogilvy & Mather in England, those who saw that precisely employees who reported themselves as honest were in fact less honest (or at least - more caught). The company chose a behavioral test of integrity - they asked candidates to report how good they are with computers: what is their typing speed, how quickly they switch between mouse and keyboard, etc. Subsequently, the job candidates were asked to perform exactly these things - to type text quickly, to work with mouse and keyboard quickly, and so on. In this way, the company identified candidates who inflated their achievements excessively, who were cheaters or too creative about their skills. After a period of work in the organization, they found that the more reliable group achieved higher achievements in various areas of work, but a lower level of achievements in the field of sales! Because sales require high creativity, a bit of sophistication, not reporting all the full truth about the product...